System and method for rejecting a proposed commitment

Abstract

A system and method that allow an individual or a party to reject a proposed commitment in a structured manner such that clear disclosure of the condition(s) on which the commitment was proposed, on what ground the commitment was rejected, and optionally, revision(s) that are considered necessary for acceptance in subsequent re-proposal is possible.

1 . A method for revealing, organizing, understanding, and assessing a proposed commitment and capturing the grounds on which the commitment was rejected, comprising the steps of: 
 a. revealing the proposed commitment by showing the condition(s) and the basis the commitment was made upon;    b. organizing for better understanding the dependency(ies) and criteria the commitment relies upon for its successful fulfillment;    c. assessing and understanding the commitment proposed;    d. capturing the reason(s) the commitment was rejected; and    e. optionally, capturing the suggested revisions that are considered necessary for acceptance in subsequent resubmission.    
     
     
         2 . The method as set forth in  claim 1 , further comprising the steps of: 
 a. retrieving a commitment object proposed earlier by an individual or a party to another individual or another party. The commitment object will comprise at least one activity, deliverable, resource, budget, or an acquisition demand that forms the basis of that commitment;    b. presenting the retrieved commitment and its basis for understanding and assessment;    c. capturing the result of the assessment by allowing the assessor to accept or reject the presented commitment object, its basis the commitment was made upon, and the defined conditions that are considered the criteria for fulfillment; and    d. in the event of rejection by the assessor, generating a commitment rejection object and return it to the individual or party who proposed the earlier commitment object.    The rejection record will contain the result of the assessment written by the assessor highlighting the grounds for rejection and optionally, suggestion for improvement for a better chance of acceptance at next re-submission.    
     
     
         3 . The method as set forth in  claim 2  further comprising the steps of: 
 a. tracking gaps between what were committed and what were expected;    b. tracking changes in expectations between successive rejections;    c. presenting gaps tracked to avoid repetition of the same in successive commitment proposals; and    d. presenting changes in expectations for better understanding of the rationales behind rejections.    
     
     
         4 . The method as set forth in  claim 3 , further comprising the steps of: 
 a. testing error and status messages;    b. revising at least one of said activity, said deliverable, said resource demand, said budget demand, said acquisition demand, said fulfillment criteria, or said commitment rejection object upon one of said error or status messages; and    c. repeating said retrieving, presenting, rejecting, testing, and revising steps until none of said error or status messages is received.    
     
     
         5 . A system comprising a transaction object for processing said data received by a relational database.